I thought so, too, at first. But there's a crucial difference: With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. With the Bear license, Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me, but Stallman would disagree. He has made it clear that there should be no restrictions on use.

▲

cxr 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me

From the license at <https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248...>:

"You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality"

Given that the exclusive purpose of the Software in question is to implement a managed service for its users' hosting needs, I'm having trouble understanding how anyone could take the position that this is "mostly in the spirit of FOSS".

The license might as well say, "You just can't use this."

▲

rafram 6 days ago | parent [-]

It’s saying that you can use Bear for your own blog, but you can’t launch a service that hosts other people’s blogs using it.

	▲	jwitthuhn 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The readme has this to say about hosting your own blog on it: "Bear Blog has been built as a platform and not as an individual blog generator. It is more like Substack than Hugo. Due to this it isn't possible to individually self-host a Bear Blog." "It isn't possible" is obviously not true but a plain reading of both that combined with the license would suggest you can't use bear at all for anything.
	▲	cxr 5 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> It’s saying that you can use Bear for your own blog Where does it say that?
	▲	6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

happymellon 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS

I don't see how, there is nothing in the spirit of FOSS by doing that.

▲

jakelazaroff 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying.

Technically true, but in practice almost every tech company forbids GPL code. I bet if you re-read your employment contract closely you'll find that you agreed not to introduce any GPL code into the company's codebases.

(Edited for clarity).

▲

josephcsible 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

This can't possibly be true, since the Linux kernel's code is GPL and approximately every tech company uses Linux.

▲

jakelazaroff 6 days ago | parent [-]

By "use GPL code" I mean integrate it into a company codebase (which would require the codebase to be licensed as GPL). Edited my original comment to clarify.

▲

pabs3 6 days ago | parent [-]

Phones contain Linux, TVs contain Linux, cars contain Linux, clouds contain Linux. It is used everywhere.

▲

heavyset_go 6 days ago | parent [-]

Companies that follow the law will release their changes to the Linux kernel when they distribute their products to users.

Just using Linux is not enough to say anything built with it is a combined product in the eyes of the GPL, the license is pretty specific about what it considers a derivative work.

For example, you can ship closed source apps and OS on top of Linux so long as you respect the license.

	▲	pabs3 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Companies that follow the law Those are pretty rare when it comes to the GPL, a lot of hardware companies do not comply with it fully, in some way. Vizio is being made an example of at the moment: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html

▲

pmontra 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Note that this is about source code, not binaries, or nobody would be working with docker (and more.)

Of course a company must forbid copy/paste of GPL code, because that would GPL the codebase and that's hardly what they want. But one should ask the Legal office (and/or other offices) about adding any MIT, BSD or proprietary library: credit must be given (how?), licenses must be available and compatible with the way the software is distributed. There are so many licenses out there, everything should be vetted.

	▲	jakelazaroff 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Re: code vs. binaries, it depends on the license. Another commenter has been pointing out that Google forbids any use of AGPL projects, period [1] because its definition of "linking" includes communication over a network. Of course everything should be vetted, but lawyers have canned advice about common licenses they see often — GPL, MIT, etc. [1] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

▲

ahartmetz 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm self-employed in Germany, and when I was employed, what was in the contract went more in the other direction: it was explicitly allowed to contribute to FOSS projects. Of course, it still would not have been OK to randomly add GPL software to a closed source customer project. If anyone had been stupid (uneducated, really) enough, somebody else on the same project would have noticed.

	▲	jakelazaroff 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, the second sentence is what I meant. This is why I'm writing comments on Hacker News rather than legal contracts :)

▲

jefftk 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was at a FANG until 2022, and we were allowed to introduce GPL code into the monorepo. There were policies on how to do it correctly, but definitely not prohibited.

(AGPL, however, was nearly impossible to get permission to use)

▲

account42 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Companies not wanting GPL code in code bases they want to keep proprietary should not be surprising to anyone. I fail to see how that is relevant to the comment you are replying though.

Some companies subscribe to FUD (aka lawyers covering their ass) and forbid use of AGPL, GPL and sometimes even LGPL software outright even though they allow proprietary sofware that has even more restrictions, but the big elephant in the room that is usually cited for these open source to "proprietary but we still want the publicity of open source" license changes (AWS) is not one of those companies that put fear over profit.

	▲	jakelazaroff 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		The comment I'm replying to says that the reason companies like Bear choose these licenses over the AGPL is that the AGPL allows other companies to offer competing hosting services. I'm saying that while that's true, in practice most companies will not touch AGPL code.

▲

fsflover 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying

Any examples when AGPL was used successfully by competitors? Typically every company prohibits using this licence.

	▲	fsflover 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Why am I silently downvoted?